Voting for housing

[michael]

After years of attacking the planning department on the subject of not enough housing in Lewisham, it is very pleasing to hear that Tim's desire for new housing is not that different to the rest of us. The Core Strategy has been in place for some time now, with minor adjustments over the years, but the target of 18,000 new homes has existed at least since 2009, when the 15 year timeline began. As yet only a small fraction has been realised, but that is to be expected since we are only 5 years in and house building is speeding up now.

The main area for house building has been identified in the core strategy at the Ravensbourne corridor, through Deptford, Lewisham, and Catford. Lewisham Gateway project is now well under way and Boris made a big announcement (which wasn't really a big announcement) about the Catford Greyhound stadium site last year. Convoy's Wharf is still stuck in the planning system, now at a GLA level, with an argument primarily about the amount of affordable housing (with GLA likely to allow substantially less that 50% required in the London Plan).

But the Core Strategy manages to talk about all this housing growth while allowing other areas to be designated "Areas of Stability and Managed Change". These are areas like Sydenham where there is room for growth in housing, but there is not the infrastructure or a general desire to turn them from suburban to urban environments. Lewisham is focusing on revitalising the urban centres with new housing (and high street and transport infrastructure), and allowing more natural growth in suburban areas (if there is ever natural growth when we are considering housing in London).

I agree with Tim that these targets are right for Lewisham, I have previously argued that such growth is correct, but that significantly higher rates of growth in housing would be difficult to implement and to support, particularly in suburban areas. But this will not provide a supply-side solution for the larger London housing issues. The total of 100,000 new homes across London in the next 10-15 years is unlikely to be enough to support the growing workforce, and as a result housing costs will continue to be at a premium in the capital and the surrounding areas.

I do not claim to have a solution for a regional or national problem of housing. I know that Lewisham's core strategy and the London Plan do little to address this (they certainly won't solve the problem). I'm sure Tim won't consider that these plans are enough to make any difference to house prices, but it is good to know that they are good enough to satisfy him on the housebuilding front.

Looking at what he promises on housing for the next four years

Deliver a minimum of 2,000 new affordable homes, building 500 council homes directly,

which makes my point about focusing on affordable housing, when it is increasing the total housing supply which matters more to 'those on middle incomes'. And, very sensibly, this is what the Local Development Framework - page 36 targets in the first place

Core Strategy Objective 2:

Housing provision and distribution

5.4 Provision will be made for the completion of an additional 18,165 net new dwellings from all sources between 2009/10 and 2025/26 to meet local housing need and accommodate the borough’s share of London’s housing needs. This aims to exceed the London Plan target for the borough

I'm struggling a bit to find explicit statements about what the breakdown between 'affordable' and other provision is or is meant to be, but I think it's meant to be 50/50, on which basis, Steve Bullock promising just 2,000 more affordable homes - I assume over the next four years of his Mayoralty - isn't that big a deal, especially since when broken down in Table 9.2 on page 165, this included 9,000 in 2014/2020.

[Tim Lund]

But the Core Strategy manages to talk about all this housing growth while allowing other areas to be designated "Areas of Stability and Managed Change". These are areas like Sydenham where there is room for growth in housing, but there is not the infrastructure or a general desire to turn them from suburban to urban environments. Lewisham is focusing on revitalising the urban centres with new housing (and high street and transport infrastructure), and allowing more natural growth in suburban areas (if there is ever natural growth when we are considering housing in London).

So here in Sydenham & Forest Hill, where we've no general desire to see more of the riff raff, we're OK, and our property prices will outperform other parts of the borough.

[michael]

I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion from anything I have said. I'm aware that you get very tetchy when I put words in your mouth, so please don't do the same to me.

There are large parts of urban London with higher property prices than Forest Hill or Sydenham. Density and price are not intrinsically related. I'm happy with the core strategy and the expected growth figures in Lewisham and where that is to come from. From what you said above in endorsing the growth plans for housing in Lewisham, I see little difference in our views, possibly than you want to growth in Sydenham rather than Catford.

[Tim Lund]

Michael - the problem is that you seem to accept unquestioned the idea that there should be areas "where there is room for growth in housing, but there is not the infrastructure or a general desire to turn them from suburban to urban". I know this is current planning policy, and it's the flip side of concentrating the expansion of Lewisham's housing supply in those core areas, now being dominated by skyscrapers. I'm nothing like as pessimistic as some about such very high rise living turning into the slums of the future, and I'm probably more accepting of the visual impact than others, but I'm still not that keen on them.

For areas of "Areas of Stability and Managed Change" such as ours, the consequences in terms of greater price appreciation are obvious, making them more attractive for owner occupiers, and creating an incentive for existing property owners to maintain such exclusiveness. LB Lewisham planning policy in this case will help drive the polarisation of our society.

[Tim Lund]

I’m 20 – 1 at Paddy Power!!

Link here

Interested in the WolmarforLondon conference on Sat June 14. Go to http://www.wolmarforlondon.co.uk/ideas- ... e-14-2014/ to sign up. Follow me on Twitter @christianwolmar and see more than 1,000 articles and blogs on my website archive http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk For my mayoral campaign, the twitter account is @wolmarforlondon and the website http://www.wolmarforlondon.co.uk

[Tim Lund]

On Christian Wolmar's campaign website there's an interesting article by an architect on what sort of housing London needs:

“we need to build differently” is to say the least inadequate.

Come to page 24 and we get to the meat of the report, a definition of mid-rise housing, 5-8 storeys. Not up to 10-12 storeys which might have been thought a more acceptable proposition for some of the higher value and better served areas of a world city.

The potential locations and context for mid-rise revealed at the beginning are key routes, small/medium infill sites, large scale new build and estate regeneration.

An important consideration is the so-called “right of way” (R.O.W.). Mid-rise developments can be defined as those buildings not taller
 than the R.O.W. of the streets onto which they face. This is not taken any further as a definition but begs the question “what about buildings overlooking large open spaces, parks, rivers?”

The four separate contextual or typologies are then discussed

"mid-rise" is a new one on me, and it sounds interesting. I'm afraid my eyes glaze over, however, when people lapse into planning speak about "typologies"

London Housing Report: the Princes Foundation

[michael]

Michael - the problem is that you seem to accept unquestioned the idea that there should be areas "where there is room for growth in housing, but there is not the infrastructure or a general desire to turn them from suburban to urban". I know this is current planning policy, and it's the flip side of concentrating the expansion of Lewisham's housing supply in those core areas, now being dominated by skyscrapers. I'm nothing like as pessimistic as some about such very high rise living turning into the slums of the future, and I'm probably more accepting of the visual impact than others, but I'm still not that keen on them.

For areas of "Areas of Stability and Managed Change" such as ours, the consequences in terms of greater price appreciation are obvious, making them more attractive for owner occupiers, and creating an incentive for existing property owners to maintain such exclusiveness. LB Lewisham planning policy in this case will help drive the polarisation of our society.

I don't accept things unquestioned. I genuinely believe there is no desire in Sydenham or Forest Hill for the standard to be 5-8 storeys. There are plenty of existing buildings of this height in the area and I would welcome some more (but not a fundamental change of the existing streetscape). I'm certainly not keen on significantly more 10+ storey blocks in the local area, but even then I believe some may be acceptable in appropriate locations.

I also don't accept that Areas of Stability and Managed Change will automatically be more expensive. New build flats in Kidbrooke or Greenwich can get higher prices than terraced houses in SE26. But these, as well as Deptford, Lewisham and Catford, are the best places to build large scale developments. London's house prices are generally rising, not in particular areas. Some of the highest rises have been in urban areas - like Hackney, but also areas like Sydenham which have greatly increased their transport connections in that last few years. It is not because there are no new houses in Sydenham that prices in Sydenham are rising, it is because there isn't enough housing anywhere in London.

So if enough building is going on in Lewisham to satisfy you, why do you need Deptford densities in Sydenham? Is it just to take a few storeys off the buildings in Lewisham Gateway because your not keen on anything above 8 storeys, or are you saying (as I previously thought you had been saying) that the level of house building in Lewisham is inadequate and you would like substantially more than 18,000 new homes?

[Tim Lund]

I genuinely believe there is no desire in Sydenham or Forest Hill for the standard to be 5-8 storeys

That's a very strong statement, and tempting the question whether, if planning permission were possible,you think developers would go for it. If your answer to this question is "yes", then you must accept there would be demand. Just maybe not from existing members of the Forest Hill Society to whose emails to discuss planning issues you chose to reply. You could also look at the 5 storey blocks on Perry Vale opposite Church Vale, which look to me like good quality GLC post war development. Why not more such?

I think, as part of a London wide plan, that there needs to be many more than the 18,000 new homes currently planned for Lewisham, and I think a fair proportion of them should and can come to Sydenham and Forest Hill, and our greatly improved transport links support the case. An extension of the Bakerloo line in this direction would reinforce the case further.

I don't want Deptford densities, but we should be able to accept higher densities here.

The point about relative prices here and in Kidbrooke new build is one where I need to defer to further empirical evidence.

[leenewham]

Where Tim?

What patch of ground in Sydenham do we build more homes, or do we knock down existing property to build new hi-rise blocks?

How Tim?

How will this be done. Will they change the planning rules to allow it. The Salvation Army place is to be built on but has got local opposition due to density. More more resistance to planning, more lawyers, more fees.

What Tim?

What will be affordable? This terms generally means 'cheaper than the market highs but still unreachable unless you buy a share of the home'. What would they look like, what about community, what about infrastructure and schools, and police and hospitals and doctors, all of which would have to be significantly upgraded if we have higher desensitise.

Where dose the money come from for all of this?

What about transport? During peak times the train is already rammed. How do you solve that.

JUST building houses WONT, I REPEAT WONT make any significant change to house prices. It will make a difference to the amount of people waiting for decent housing (hopefully), but unless lots of people are selling property that is already in existence, the way houses are sold and marketed are changed, the way we THINK about houses as investments are changed and overseas investors buying property as investments is at the very least strictly regulated, then this stupid house price rat race will carry on.

On top of that, we need to take the heat out of London's growth. It cannot be the main driver for the British economy. It's stupid, basic common sense. but NO ONE, let along you Tim, who I know has a large amount of common sense is talking about the majority of the above.

They all way 'we wan't more housing' without saying what, how or where. Which means nothing.

It's like me saying ' I wan't everyone to be happy and have lots of money, vote for me' in my manifesto…

…which is a load of Bullocks.

[Nicholas]

Hello

I've been urged to comment on the reasons people around my age (23) don't bother to vote for their own interests.

In 2010 many of us did make an effort to so with regards to tuition fees and we all know what happened there. I will be interested to see how many millennials go out of their way to punish the politically promiscuous Liberal Democrats who slammed the door of democracy in their faces.

I suspect that most people my age feel utterly powerless to alter politics and economics in their favour and are now resigned to student debt, extortionate rent and low paid work. Naturally this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because politicians are told by their advisors not to bother with us and instead chase the powerful grey vote. (if it hadn't been for Maria Miller, the pensioner friendly budget might have been enough to save the tories)

I doubt many people under the age of 25 will vote in the May election and if they do they will probably vote for the Green Party as a vague protest. UKIP catches elderly dissatisfaction with Westminster and the Green Party tend to monopolise the young dissatisfaction.

Personally I will be voting but speaking as a political blogger at the Huffington Post (as a general rule) I don't endorse candidates or parities. Speaking as an unemployed graduate, having a job and not having to spend half the salary on rent would be quite nice. Is that something the can be achieved by local politicians? I've no idea.

[Eagle]

Nicholas
Good to hear from you and appreciate your views.

The University Tuition Fees Manifesto by the Lib Dems was for a Lib Dem Government. We did not have a Lib Dem Government but a Coalition. By the very nature of the word a coalition means give and take with the other partner. This is what happened and both parties had to ditch some dearly held policies for the sake of saving the Country.

This is what happens thoughout Europe where Coalitions are more often than not.


I am sure my explanation will not alter your view , but thought best to give the facts.

I do hope you decide to exercise your franchise.

[Nicholas]

Hello Eagle

The coalition have had a quite a few disagreements and the Liberal Democrats have occasionally been able to influence and block the tories. (e.g boundary reform.)

With regards to tuition fees, the Liberal Democrats 'pledged' to abolish them and then voted to triple them. If they believed in their policy they could have abstained or voted against the increase. (the tories needed them as well remember) If, as they claim, they were unaware of the extend of the deficit, then they have no economic credibility. Either way the perception is one of privileged and well educated white men burning the ladder they themselves climbed. (same goes for Labour who introduced the fees in the first place)

The Liberal Democrats now appear utterly useless to young voters because they are unable (even unwilling) to work for young people. Is there any evidence to suggest that Labour or anybody else might be different?

I'd like to quote an extract from something I wrote on my blog last year. Not for the sake of a rant but because I feel that it is very important in the context of young apathy towards politics.

It's not the first time this government has undermined its moral objection to debt by outsourcing it to the general public. When increasing tuition fees the same effect was achieved. Today's higher education still has to be paid for tomorrow, the debt didn't disappear, it simply moved house. And as I write this news has broken that the student loan book itself is set to be privatised to make a quick buck.

The primary aim of this government has been to reduce the deficit so public spending wouldn't depend on unsustainable borrowing. The motivation was not simply one of pragmatism it was also sold to us as a moral endeavour. The image evoked was that of a baby chained to a weight several times its size, unable to crawl into the future due to the bills that had been stacked up by his/her parents. Despite all the austerity measures, that weight is getting heaver not lighter. The only difference is that it will sit at the end of a separate chain.

The debt from higher education is eternal, the coalition government didn't make it shrink, they simply told us that it was our problem now. But it has always been 'our problem' as a collective society because there was an idea that universities and graduates aided the country as a whole. Now (at the risk of sounding nostalgic and cantankerous) education is increasingly perceived a product, a very personal investment towards a job.

I'm not (just) writing to this to extol some kind of romantic socialist philosophy of university education. Policies like this (for better or worse) turn progress into a personal responsibility. We now learn not because we believe in the future of the state or because the state believes in us. Now it's simply careerism. And that undermines the old collectivist idea of coming together to build a better society and we're not all in this together. Ideas like democracy and voting rely on an assumption that we are all in this together and that it is worth making an effort to improve your environment/society as well as your own personal situation.

I'm afraid I know of almost nobody my age who even believes that is possible or that it can be accomplished at the ballot box.

You can apologise for Clegg and Cable if you think it's fair to do so, but I would only expect that to exacerbate these problems.

[Manwithaview1]

Nicholas
Good to hear from you and appreciate your views.

The University Tuition Fees Manifesto by the Lib Dems was for a Lib Dem Government. We did not have a Lib Dem Government but a Coalition. By the very nature of the word a coalition means give and take with the other partner. This is what happened and both parties had to ditch some dearly held policies for the sake of saving the Country.

This is what happens thoughout Europe where Coalitions are more often than not.


I am sure my explanation will not alter your view , but thought best to give the facts.

I do hope you decide to exercise your franchise.

Where in the Tory manifesto does it say they will treble University tuition fees?
Where does it say they will sell off 70% of the Post Office?

[Eagle]

MWAV

I did not say either were. They were as a result of Coalition negotiation. I thought selling Royal Mail was Labour Policy.


Nicholas

Thanks for your reply. I am not a great fan of either gentleman , only pointing out a coalition is an amalgamation of policies. Happens throughout Europe.

Re Fees. I do agree modern students do not have an easy time also not sure if they have got the best policy yet.
You must understand higher education costs have gone through the roof.
In 1966 when I left school about 5% of school leavers went to Uni. I believe now over 40%. That is a major cost increase.
I , like 95% of my peers , did not go into Uni , but agree had no trouble getting a job.

I think until they reached the Treasury and found the note left by Labour ( There is no money left ) they did not appreciate the full extent of the horrendous debt.

The last 4 years have not been great , many downs as well as ups , but the country had been living well beyond its means . Not only the Government but many Citizens.

[Nicholas]

I think there are three things that are worth saying. Firstly, that the global economic crisis that started in 2007/2008 wasn't a result of spending too much money on libraries, universities and job seekers allowance etc. As Owen Jones puts it "A crisis of the market was cleverly transformed by free market ideologues into a crisis of public spending."

Secondly, that a large economy isn't necessarily like a household where you can solve a financial problem by telling everybody to simply spend less. Actually Paul Krugman was writing this perception today on the New York Times website:

When you have economy-wide deleveraging — when everyone is trying to spend less than his or her income, so as to pay down debt — you have a fundamental adding-up problem. My spending is your income, and your spending is my income, so if both of us try to spend less at the same time, what we end up achieving is mutual impoverishment.

Thirdly, that allowing lots of people to go to university is socially, culturally and economically autocatalytic and if we can send a man to the moon we can probably figure out a way of making the vast potential of popular higher education outweigh the costs. Is that beyond us?

Anyway I think i've probably deviated enough from the subject of housing now.

[Eagle]

Nicolas

Do not worry about wandering of the subject , there are some real experts on this Forum at that.

You make a number of interesting points which I do not all disagree with.

[Manwithaview1]

MWAV

I did not say either were. They were as a result of Coalition negotiation. I thought selling Royal Mail was Labour Policy.


Nicholas

Thanks for your reply. I am not a great fan of either gentleman , only pointing out a coalition is an amalgamation of policies. Happens throughout Europe.

Re Fees. I do agree modern students do not have an easy time also not sure if they have got the best policy yet.
You must understand higher education costs have gone through the roof.
In 1966 when I left school about 5% of school leavers went to Uni. I believe now over 40%. That is a major cost increase.
I , like 95% of my peers , did not go into Uni , but agree had no trouble getting a job.

I think until they reached the Treasury and found the note left by Labour ( There is no money left ) they did not appreciate the full extent of the horrendous debt.

The last 4 years have not been great , many downs as well as ups , but the country had been living well beyond its means . Not only the Government but many Citizens.

No Cameron lied about it being Labour Policy, The Tuition fees policy/fiasco was imposed on the Libdems. Why they agreed to join with a party so ideologically the opposite of them remains a huge mystery.

As for the note Labour left they mimicked the Tory Chancellor's note of 1964 - sorry old cock there's no money left. We are a Sovereign nation so money can be printed quite easily etc. You do know how the UK works right?

[Tim Lund]

Where Tim?

What patch of ground in Sydenham do we build more homes, or do we knock down existing property to build new hi-rise blocks?

You could ask the same questions about the parts of Lewisham designated for development. If you're redeveloping existing urban and suburban areas, some buildings will probably be knocked down. Within SE26, the site which immediately comes to mind is Willow Way, where a shadowy group of local planning cognescienti, I'm told, are even now drawing up plans for redevelopment, which I assume will involve knock down some existing buildings. But will they look for opportunities to house more people, or will their concerns about the roof line along Kirkdale matter more? Perhaps we should be told

Seriously, the main point is that when sites come available for redevelopment, planning policy should allow higher rise than currently. Such an opportunity was there when the row opposite Home Park was redeveloped. I can't say I'm that keen on its architecture - to my mind it's a bit dull. Do you suppose, if planning rules has allowed an additional storey, that might have helped pay for something better. In principle it should, but it would have required planning policies in place to guide development accordingly.

How Tim?

How will this be done. Will they change the planning rules to allow it. The Salvation Army place is to be built on but has got local opposition due to density. More more resistance to planning, more lawyers, more fees.

I'm staying out of the details of the Haven and Rookstone development, but, if redvelopment in an area is generally difficult, when sites do come up where it's possible, you will tend to get over development on them. On a much smaller scale, it's what happened at 18 Longton Avenue, where 7 flats were squeezed onto a site where previously there were two maisonettes - which I would agree is excessive. OK there was a bit of garden grabbing, but the roof line was preserved, so SydSoc were happy.

What Tim?

What will be affordable? This terms generally means 'cheaper than the market highs but still unreachable unless you buy a share of the home'. What would they look like, what about community, what about infrastructure and schools, and police and hospitals and doctors, all of which would have to be significantly upgraded if we have higher desensitise.

Where does the money come from for all of this?

This is what planning is should be about, rather than what it so often seems, a bewildering body of jargon which tuned in Nimbies can use to stop the developments they don't want. And if you want to see it in action, follow those links to Lewisham's Local Development Framework. I'l admit the jargon is off putting, but there you will find maps to say where new development will go, and on the evidence of development which is already happening, money will be forthcoming. As ever, with London property prices where they are, money should not be a problem. It would also be nice if central government allow local authorities to borrow more for new Council homes.

What about transport? During peak times the train is already rammed. How do you solve that.

It's like other part of urban development, you have to plan for it, it takes time, but it will be worth it. Sure the Overground is packed at peak times, but it's still evidence of capacity having been successfully increased. For more public transport capacity expansion, let's start pushing more for the Bakerloo line extension. Don't say things can't be done when the evidence of even recent history is that they can.

JUST building houses WONT, I REPEAT WONT make any significant change to house prices. It will make a difference to the amount of people waiting for decent housing (hopefully), but unless lots of people are selling property that is already in existence, the way houses are sold and marketed are changed, the way we THINK about houses as investments are changed and overseas investors buying property as investments is at the very least strictly regulated, then this stupid house price rat race will carry on.

Building enough will, which is why we need to be bold, and not accept the planning totals embodied in Local Development Frameworks.

If we want people to stop thinking about property as a speculation, rather than a place to live, then one helpful change would be planning policies which do take account of price - so targeting the ratio of market rents to median incomes.

But rents rather than prices. I know most people aspire to own their own place, but property prices don't just reflect people's need for housing, but how much it is worth to them not to have to pay rent. In our post 2008 crash world, where interest rates are kept artificially low, it's worth a lot more not to have to pay rent, so it makes sense to pay more more for houses, even while rents stay the same.

Housing in London has been subject to a triple demand shock. First, the increasing tendency for people, especially the young & creative, to want to be here. Second, the attraction of London as a place for the international super rich - to stay, or at least have a little place in Chelsea, wherever to stay a few months of the year. And third, the general demand for property from investors as something which should pay a stable income. This is the same effect as it being worth more for people living somewhere to own than rent when interest rates are low. In an open economy such as ours, a large percentage of such investors will be from overseas, but there's no way our government will be able to prevent them - or would want to. It's also an effect which does not just impact London.

On top of that, we need to take the heat out of London's growth. It cannot be the main driver for the British economy. It's stupid, basic common sense. but NO ONE, let along you Tim, who I know has a large amount of common sense is talking about the majority of the above.

Maybe it cannot, but it seems it is. Let's adjust.

They all way 'we wan't more housing' without saying what, how or where. Which means nothing.

It's like me saying ' I wan't everyone to be happy and have lots of money, vote for me' in my manifesto…

…which is a load of Bullocks.

OK - I know you don't see Steve Bullock as dispassionately as I do, but he's not really promising the undeliverable. He has the incumbent's advantage of knowing the local realities, and is pretty well untroubled by serious opposition. It's why I think this election's significance is mainly in what it signals more widely about whether talking about building more homes is good politics. I'm sure it's something which 2016 London Mayoral candidates will be watching out for, especially those wanting to stand for Labour.

[Tim Lund]

Hello

Good to hear from you!

I doubt many people under the age of 25 will vote in the May election and if they do they will probably vote for the Green Party as a vague protest. UKIP catches elderly dissatisfaction with Westminster and the Green Party tend to monopolise the young dissatisfaction.

Indeed.

And what do you think your contemporaries are hoping for from the Green Party on housing? Darren Johnson certainly understands the issue



Three Options on Housing

but I strongly suspect that most of his constituency - in the sense of the 5% of the London electorate who vote Green - would feel uncomfortable if he did start going into more detail about how we get more housing. Would younger people be more realistic? Look on the Lewisham Green Party web site and we can see they oppose market forces in the provision of housing - after supporting the legislation of cannabis and the outlawing of supermarket self check outs - but what about aggregate housing supply expansion? Is this how you appeal to youthful left wing yearnings. My suspicion is that there's a constituency of younger voters who could be won by more realistic policies.

Personally I will be voting but speaking as a political blogger at the Huffington Post (as a general rule) I don't endorse candidates or parities. Speaking as an unemployed graduate, having a job and not having to spend half the salary on rent would be quite nice. Is that something the can be achieved by local politicians? I've no idea.

If Steve Bullock was sure that building more houses would help win votes, and maybe more important kudos and status within the world of Local Government, then I'm sure he would be pressing for more, and if other London Local authorities picked up on the message, then you have a chance of having your own place in London without paying half your salary in rent. So yes, it is something which can be achieved by local politicians, but they are waiting to hear from you. Standing on the sidelines, declining to say who you are going to vote for is not helpful, although it will align you with the respectable folk of our local amenity societies. Just because you may declare you're going to vote Green, Labour or whatever in 2014, it's not an ineradicable tribal brand.

[Nicholas]

And what do you think your contemporaries are hoping for from the Green Party on housing?

Nothing at all I imagine. It didn't matter that Nigel Farage hadn't read his own manifesto because, to his supporters, he was merely a receptacle for dissatisfaction with Westminster. Almost nobody thinks that voting for UKIP is a real solution, its simply way of saying immigration is an important issue. To an extent the same is true of Green Party. Its a way of saying that Westminster has failed and that we should help polar bears. (which we should) It's all about the message, not the polices, almost nobody who votes UKIP or Green in a local election expects Lewisham council to ethnically cleanse Sydenham or save the polar bear and I doubt many young people have faith in the idea that a politician could provide affordable housing at the level needed. Personally I'm a bit more optimistic then that.

Standing on the sidelines, declining to say who you are going to vote for is not helpful, although it will align you with the respectable folk of our local amenity societies. Just because you may declare you're going to vote Green, Labour or whatever in 2014, it's not an ineradicable tribal brand.

I don't think my personal voting intentions are that interesting or important to other people. The reasons for extortion rent, unsuitable tuition fees and voter apathy are still far too opaque to most of the people effected by them. And I certainly would't be a journalist if I thought it would involve standing on the sidelines.

I think this blog post by Adam Curtis probably explains the situation best.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/p ... -THE-FLUCK